two presidents

[Guest sammy]

Our bylaws state that the nominating committee must submit a slate of officers,one for each office, One of our chapters show two names for the president and this was never challenged, these two people were sworn in as co chairs for the president and that they will take office the first of the year. This is in violation of our bylaws and want to correct this before the first of the year, what kind of action must be taken to correct this problem, thanks

[Guest Edgar]

This is in violation of our bylaws and want to correct this before the first of the year, what kind of action must be taken to correct this problem, thanks

If you can determine which of the two "presidents" came in second in the election, you can inform him that he didn't get the job. If the situation is stickier than that (e.g. they were actually elected as a team), you may have to re-do the election. But stay tuned for the possibility of more subtle parliamentary solutions.

[Guest sammy]

If you can determine which of the two "presidents" came in second in the election, you can inform him that he didn't get the job. If the situation is stickier than that (e.g. they were actually elected as a team), you may have to re-do the election. But stay tuned for the possibility of more subtle parliamentary solutions.

is it possible to go with first name on the slate for president as this person was asked first and said that they may need help and that is how the second name was added without talking to this person to see if they wanted to be on the slate ?

[Sean Hunt]

is it possible to go with first name on the slate for president as this person was asked first and said that they may need help and that is how the second name was added without talking to this person to see if they wanted to be on the slate ?

It depends, as Edgar said, how the decision was done. If it was done as "Elect X and Y to be co-presidents for next year", then this decision was null and void and you have not elected any President.

[Guest Edgar]

is it possible to go with first name on the slate for president as this person was asked first and said that they may need help and that is how the second name was added without talking to this person to see if they wanted to be on the slate ?

The selections of the nominating committee (what you're referring to as a "slate") are just the first step in the electoral process. Additional nominations are made ("from the floor"), followed by debate and then voting. But it sounds like you may have never gotten to the voting part.

[Guest sammy]

Thank you for your help, we know that we will be chanaged on this decision,so what reference was ued in RR to answer this?

[Guest Edgar]

. . . we know that we will be challenged on this decision so what reference was used in RONR to answer this?

You don't need anything in RONR. If the bylaws call only for "a" president, you can't have two. It's common sense (though, apparently, not all that common). The "burden of proof" is on those who say there can be two presidents, not on you to prove that there can't.

[Guest sammy]

You don't need anything in RONR. If the bylaws call only for "a" president, you can't have two. It's common sense (though, apparently, not all that common). The "burden of proof" is on those who say there can be two presidents, not on you to prove that there can't.

thse two people never appeared on a slate as co presidents and they were sworn in indivually. the minutes show them as co presidents, so if they were not sworn in together, would not the first person sworn in to be the presidnet?

[Chris Harrison]

thse two people never appeared on a slate as co presidents and they were sworn in indivually. the minutes show them as co presidents, so if they were not sworn in together, would not the first person sworn in to be the presidnet?

No. RONR doesn't support the idea that the first guy who was nominated or whoever was sworn in first gets the job over the other. Can you tell us more about how the election was conducted? Was it done by ballot or some other method of voting? Were they elected simultaneously or one at a time? Which one got more votes (the vote would have had to be counted)? If you all aren't able to decipher who got more votes or was elected first it might be just as easy to render that election null and void and hold a new election where those two and any other nominees from the floor are candidates.

Of course since this was done by a (presumably) subordinate Chapter that throws a whole new monkey wrench in the works as to who has the authority to figure things out (and make it stick) and that answer should be located in the bylaws of the parent organization and/or the Chapter.

[Trina]

You don't need anything in RONR. If the bylaws call only for "a" president, you can't have two. It's common sense (though, apparently, not all that common). The "burden of proof" is on those who say there can be two presidents, not on you to prove that there can't.

I agree, of course, that it is improper to elect multiple people to a single office under the rules in RONR.

However, I wish the book would be more explicit about this, so that there would be a 'drop dead' citation to pull out when the question comes up.

For organizations whose members have little knowledge of RONR (and in a day when 'they' is increasingly used as a singular pronoun ) the absolute prohibition on co-office-holders can be a hard sell. I belong to one organization in which it was common for years to have co-office-holders, including co-presidents, even though this was not authorized under the bylaws (bylaws spoke of 'a president', 'a vice president', etc.). A few years back the bylaws were revised (among many other changes, the practice of co-office-holders was explicitly prohibited). Quite a few members were strongly opposed to this change, and it is still a bone of contention in the society. My main point, though, is that these members view the prohibition as a change, when it was actually only a clarification -- co-officers were always a violation of the bylaws; it's just that the organization didn't recognize that the practice violated the bylaws.

[Guest sammy]

the slate of officers were published in our call to meeting letter in plenty of time reqired by our bylaws, at the meeting it was presented as the slate of officers for up coming year,showing both names as co-presidents and and show of hands was used to vote on the slate, so not one or the other received different numbers of votes.at this time we feel that we should consider this vote null and void for the two co-president and let the ist vicepresident step in till we can have a special election, what if one of the co-presidents wishes to step down and let the other one be president,would this not solve our problem?

[Trina]

the slate of officers were published in our call to meeting letter in plenty of time reqired by our bylaws, at the meeting it was presented as the slate of officers for up coming year,showing both names as co-presidents and and show of hands was used to vote on the slate, so not one or the other received different numbers of votes.at this time we feel that we should consider this vote null and void for the two co-president and let the ist vicepresident step in till we can have a special election, what if one of the co-presidents wishes to step down and let the other one be president,would this not solve our problem?

Since neither one of the two people was properly elected president in the first place, having one step down doesn't really solve the problem. Since both were apparently equally elected, this seems somewhat analagous to the situation when there is a tie vote during an election. The election is not over at that point -- it is not complete until one candidate receives a majority. One candidate can't just say to the other, "OK, you win." -- that's a decision for the assembly to make.

Also, when you say 'we should consider this vote null and void' -- it's perhaps worth pointing out that the formal decision that a prior action is null and void must be made at a meeting (of the body that has authority to find the action null and void).

[Guest Edgar]

For organizations whose members have little knowledge of RONR . . . the absolute prohibition on co-office-holders can be a hard sell.

While the subject does come up on this forum an inordinate number of times, people need only look to their everyday experience when voting for a mayor or the President (of the U.S.). Why something that would be ludicrous in their civic experience suddenly becomes reasonable in their club escapes me.

More broadly, RONR can't possibly list all the actions that can't be taken. And yet we frequently get questions in the general category of "Our president is doing [insert something absurd here]. Can you show us where in RONR it says that he can't do that? We need a citation or some of the members won't believe it."

That having been said, I'm all for the belt-and-suspenders approach (e.g. specifying that the quorum is a majority of the members even though it's the RONR default).

[Guest sammy]

now that we have all of these oponions, how do we correct this mess?

[Gary Novosielski]

thse two people never appeared on a slate as co presidents and they were sworn in indivually. the minutes show them as co presidents, so if they were not sworn in together, would not the first person sworn in to be the presidnet?

No, the person who gets a majority vote is the president. You seem to be forgetting the (necessary) election!

[Trina]

No, the person who gets a majority vote is the president. You seem to be forgetting the (necessary) election!

Well, they did have a vote (see post #11) -- it sounds as though the voters approved the co-presidents, not realizing that this was not proper according to the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

now that we have all of these oponions, how do we correct this mess?

At the next meeting, the chair (either at his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order) should declare the election null and void. If the chair is not cooperative, you may also need to Appeal from the ruling of the chair, which will leave the decision to the assembly. After the election is declared null and void, you can hold the election again and elect one President.